Politicians, planners, and mapmakers have long used mapping to depict selected spaces, to document natural and humanmade changes within them, and to identify spaces where planning intervention is needed or can be helpful. Recent innovations involving big data, GIS-based research and digital datasets offer opportunities for maps and mapping that can lead to a better understanding of the interrelation of spatial, social, and cultural elements over time and to facilitate planning. A close analysis of the historic transformation of the built environment (such as land use, land ownership, infrastructures), the development of institutional structures (municipal boundaries) and the narrative that accompanies them (as embedded in maps and plans) through historical geo-spatial mapping can facilitate the identification of ‘gaps,’ where spatial, institutional, or cultural opportunities and challenges exist and where planning can be useful. Such an understanding can provide novel insights into the conditions and complexity of multiple transitions (energy, digital, technological) and provide a better foundation for future design. Our use of geo-spatial mapping to identify ‘gaps’ builds upon the work of Patrick Geddes and Jacqueline Tyrwhitt, who promoted the concept of survey-before-plan. As Tyrwhitt argued in 1950, the consistent overlaying of information can help us see patterns and outliers and derive meaning from huge, complex territories and large amounts of data (Tyrwhitt, 1950b). We can then better identify planning opportunities. Following an analysis of mapping as an analytical tool, we explore questions of sources, time, representation, and scale in the use of mapping at a time of increased availability of data. This article represents an initial effort to analyze the role of mapping as a tool of understanding, communicating, and ultimately planning through the lens of port city regions and their development over time. As a first step, it proposes conducting observations of historical geospatial mapping in port city regions in Europe: the Nieuwe Waterweg in the Netherlands, the Thames in the UK, and the Elbe in Germany. Probing the challenges and opportunities presented by historical sources, questions of representation and scale and data layers, the article concludes by proposing historical geo-spatial maps and mapping as a tool of display and comparative research and as a ‘gap finder.’@en

Canton (present-day Guangzhou) has long flourished as a port city. As the city expanded in the nineteenth century, the risks of conflagrations increased; streets became more crowded, buildings were more often made of wood, and there was more use of open fires. The reconstruction of Canton after conflagrations provides an excellent way to observe the resilience of urban space, understood here as the result of interactions among different stakeholders. This paper explores how authorities, local communities, foreigners, and Hong merchants addressed fires and rebuilt through laws, regulations, technologies and cooperation, and how responses to fire destruction shaped urban space. Divers stakeholders affected the reconstruction of buildings and streets. The government made laws to widen streets, communities built watchtowers, and foreigners made new plans for Thirteen Factories, a neigbhorhood along the Pearl River. At the same time, conflicts between communities and foreigners obstructed plans for urban transformation and maintained the stability of urban structures. The communities kept the traditional local community organizations the ‘Kaifong’ (local organization in street) who opposed the widening streets and fought against proposed fire zones around Thirteen Factories, thus pitching local interests against those of the foreigners in a complex social, political, and cultural context.@en

Ports are clearly demarcated structures on land and water. They are fenced in, easily recognizable on satellite and orthophoto images, and they have specific functions. This apparent clarity of ports, their function and outline, in relation to nearby urban and rural areas, becomes more complex when explored through the lens of land use, that is the existing and planned future functional dimension or socio-economic purpose of the land. In contrast to urban and rural areas, where land use has been mapped and defined for centuries, the use and function of land and water in port areas has long been multifunctional and not defined on land use maps. This raises questions about the role and understanding of port territory in relation to neighboring spaces, past, and present. This article first defines land use and describes its historical development. Scholars from various disciplines, including geographers, planners, and economists, have addressed the issue of land use in port areas. Land use patterns have emerged over time and are based on earlier demarcations of port areas and distinctions between port and city. As shown by the historical port city borders in Hamburg, Rotterdam, and Koper, these delimitations can change over time, by location and by function. The land use register has only recently been harmonized at the European level. European and national registers distinguish existing and planned land use in port areas differently. Mixed uses prevail in new port interventions, creating a new kind of permeability or porosity; that is, areas where port, urban and rural functions merge. New land use porosity is a particular state of land use (on both sides of the boundaries of port areas) that goes beyond the physical boundaries marked by fences. Land use porosity effectively creates land use continuity, a functional porosity that serves as a hidden blueprint for future planning. Understanding land use porosity can provide a foundation for novel approaches to the development of transition strategies that are needed to address contemporary challenges, including climate change and sea level rise, digitization, and new work and life practices in port city regions. In conclusion, we note that due to the porosity of land use patterns, the separation between the present port and the city is beginning to crumble. However, this process has yet to be made fully visible and used as a basis for design.@en

Port cities have long played a key role in the development, discovery, and fight against diseases. They have been laboratories for policies to address public health issues. Diseases reached port cities through maritime exchanges, and the bubonic plague is a key example. Port city residents’ close contact with water further increased the chance for diseases such as cholera. Analyzing three European port cities, this article first explores the relevance of water quality for public health through the lens of the Dutch city of Rotterdam. It then examines plans and projects for London that were shaped by social Darwinism and stressed the moral failings of slum dwellers as a major cause for their misery. It finally explores the case of Hamburg as the perfect example of a city that cultivated ideals of purity and cleanliness by addressing all issues at stake in public health. This article on urban hygiene in three port cities shows how remarkably rich this field of study is; it also demonstrates that the multifaceted aspects of public health in port cities require further attention.@en

Port spaces, functions, and interests have shaped the growth and development of many cities around the world. At times, different stakeholders—private and public, local, regional, national and global—have collaborated to assure the continuity of port functions in old and new locations and, if the port relocates or if that effort fails, to redevelop former port spaces. Through the lens of port- and city-related urban developments in London, Hamburg, and Philadelphia, this article explores the multiple conditions that are part of port city resilience. It uses historical institutionalism as a theoretical framework for understanding these long-term changes, particularly in institutional and governance dynamics. It shows that the development paths of port and city spaces and the actors who shape them are not always aligned. Through the case of London, it shows a development path that is led by private investment building and relocating a world-class port and administrating it from the city center, while local and national institutions only intervene to balance spatial or social short-comings of the private actors. The case of the city-state Hamburg illustrates the development of shared port-city paths under long-term public leadership that has provided direction for the expanding port as well as for the growing city. In the case of Philadelphia, national interests, the Navy, and private investments played an important role in the creation of port infrastructure and, later, in the largely failed transformation of former port areas into public waterfronts. As shipping elites left the city and new land-based employers emerged, such as the University of Pennsylvania, the port-city path was partly discontinued. The article concludes by pointing to the expected capacity of each of these cities to address future challenges. Awareness of historical practices can help readers understand where current conditions may stand in the way of innovative solutions.@en

People around the world have shaped societies and urban spaces around water for millennia. They have transformed natural water structures and patterns to serve their diverse needs. The ways in which historical decisions affect contemporary water systems and influence future planning of urban systems still need to be fully recognized. This paper explores the multiple roles of water systems in Chang'an during the Western Han Dynasty. Chang'an, one of the ancient names for the city of Xi'an, was a typical capital city of China and East Asia in early ancient times. This study explores everyday practices pertaining to water as well as its role in defense, gardening, politics and culture. Drawing upon three historical theories, this study presents findings that water was embedded in the design of traditional Chinese capitals. The siting and construction of capital cities was first based on the Theory of Choosing the Center (3rd century BCE) and the Theory of Conforming to Nature (5th–3rd century BCE). However, the final maturation of this urban morphology, including the water system, was closely related to the Theory of Symbolizing and Modeling Heaven and Earth (4th–3rd century BCE), in a way that manifested the imperial power's organization and control of space and time. Through close analysis of historical documents, archaeological reports and modern investigations, the paper aims to clarify, analyze and summarize the historical context and evolution, functional and structural characteristics, as well as the economic, political, cultural and military connotations of water systems in Chang'an. It argues that the coordination of urban construction and the water environment was a key foundation for capital city development. It proposes that people shaped urban water supply in many ways, including daily life, waterway transportation, agricultural irrigation, aquaculture promotion, military defense and fire prevention. The water system in Chang'an also provided an important place for royalty and nobility to go fishing, to hunt and to engage in leisure and naval training. The landscape with this water system as the core, including Taiye Lake and Kunming Lake, had also inspired Chinese gardening history, and had a profound impact on future generations. More importantly, the capital's urban morphology design was a miniature of the world recognized by the monarch, as well as the symbolic image of the supreme rulers' political and cultural desire to control and possess Tianxia, which essentially means the whole world. In conclusion, the paper calls for a closer study of water-based design as a foundation for urban planning.@en

The introduction to this thematic issue on port city porosity sets the stage for the study of port city territories as a particular type of space, located at the edge of land and sea, built, often over centuries, to facilitate the transfer of goods, people, and ideas. It argues that the concept of porosity can help conceptualize the ways in which the spaces and institutions of ports, cities, and neighboring areas intersect. It expands on the well‐established notion of the interface and more recent reflections on the port city threshold by arguing for a conceptualization of the port cityscape as a continuous network of port‐related spaces and practices. The introduction places this reflection in time, exploring the ways in which boundaries have shifted and opened up; it also provides a brief overview of the 14 contributions to the thematic issue. The contributions are organized in three groups: (1) exploring long‐term approaches to porosity in port city territories; (2) mapping and conceptualizing port city porosity on the sea side and on the land side; and (3) measuring, designing, and rethinking porosity in port city territories. The thematic issue opens questions for further research such as: Does the degree of porosity between port and city areas and the presence of maritime pockets in the city and the territory lead to greater resilience of port city activities? Does the existence of porous borders between port and city allow for easier transitions?@en

Port cities and their neighbouring areas, located at the confines between sea and land, are key hubs in the transportation of goods and people. Ports serve global transport needs, while they are embedded in local geographies, topographies, political, economic and historical settlements. People have always been attracted to human settlements at the interface of water and land. These settlements have evolved into large population centres and metropolitan areas. Major cities, economic hubs and trade centres are engines of key importance for expansive territories and the ports in their vicinity, but they are also places at the forefront of many contemporary threats, including sea level rise as a consequence of climate change. Today, according to the United Nations Development Programme, 55% of humans worldwide live in cities and 40% live within 100 kms off the coast, thus in the vicinity of water-related threats. Maritime and logistic flows cross ports and densely built territories, creating additional environmental and other challenges. The war in Ukraine, long periods of drought and excessive water levels due to heavy rainfall in Pakistan are only the latest examples of both the need for and the danger of port activities for cities and landscapes. Nonetheless, a comprehensive understanding of the relationships between ports, cities and their territories is missing. This special issue argues that we need to embrace a holistic, inclusive approach to port city development, based on ecosystems values, embedded in various layers of capital: natural, cultural, social, human, industrial and creative. To achieve a port city symbiosis and avoid parasitism—defined here as a relationship where one partner benefits at the expense of another-, new port governance frameworks will have to answer to what knowledge needs to be shared to make multiple value creation in the port city ecosystem happen. For transitions to happen, port city territories will have to nurture ecosystem values to unlock this capital. New governance constellations will have to be based on shared mindsets, deeper understanding of the interests of local communities, and a set of collaborative principles. What exactly the relationships are between port, city and territory, how maritime flows relate to them, and whether or to what degree these connections are symbiotic or parasitic is subject for further exploration. Exploring the concept of symbiosis in port city ecosystems is fundamental for human activities, including economic ones, to sustain themselves in healthy, clean, green, liveable port cities and coastal communities. In this introduction we reflect on contributions by authors who examine port city symbiosis in various seaports in the Netherlands, Chile, United States, Portugal, as well as inland ports in France, Belgium, Switzerland and Germany.@en

Since industrialisation began in the 19th century, some ports have been moving away from the cities that once hosted them. That separation was only possible if land was available where new port basins, industries, and other infrastructure could be constructed and where port activities could prosper without being restricted by urban functions. The port of Rotterdam represents an extreme example of port-city separation. This chapter shows how the port of Rotterdam transformed from a staple port into a transit port. Port activities moved towards the North Sea in four steps that were related to technological, institutional, and trade pattern changes and changes in port-city relations. Such transitions highlight the close relationships between trade patterns, technological innovations and changing governance patterns. Each expansion required close collaboration between business leaders and the municipality, because administrative borders needed to be expanded and infrastructure constructed. The growth also created friction among the various stakeholders in the region. The merchants of the staple markets protected their trades and traditions, whereas the harbour barons that benefited most from the high-volume trans-shipment of bulk commodities pushed the expansion of the port. To illustrate these steps in the separation of port and city, the chapter takes the case of petroleum as a key example. While beneficial for the economic development of the port –and to some degree the city–the separation of port and city has led to a loss of connection between port and city institutions. The chapter concludes by briefly examining the challenges and opportunities of port and city separation in terms of economic, spatial and cultural development.@en